If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...

I put it in a post that was deleted by Barry.

I would suspect that you didn't "hear" it on here, or from being an avid reader, as reading would involve "seeing" it on here, not "hearing" it.

I have heard it from at least two local individuals, both not related to the other, both of which sell local queens, and have heard them say it on more than one occasion. I believe that qualifies as "more than once before." At least it does in my books.

As far as identifying the name of the two individuals, I will not. I'm not interested in spreading names. The point of the thread is the truth of the statement, not who said it.

I can see it as a gene expression trigger or something but the reverse would hold true, when you stop treating, they will express the same resistance genes when needed. I think what it refers to more is treating makes it harder to select for your best resistances on a continual basis because if you're treating queens and therefore drones that wouldn't have made it are still spreading their genes. The only other option is bees that would've died as a larva or pupae or emerged diseased are making it with low mite levels where they would not have during higher selection but then you would see seasonal changes in hives as well as the populations naturally build up during the year peaking in fall.

The "Hard Bond" approach is not about changing the genes in the current queen, it's about passing on to the next generation the genes that can survive and eliminating from the gene pool the ones that can't.

Hard Bond is about passing genes from one generation to another. Successive queens.

Lets say that you have a hive on the verge of collapse from mites. Not collapsing at the moment, but on the verge. Is it winning the battle against the mites? I'd say no. Can't say they've lost just yet, as anything can happen. But you are heading into winter. The Hard Bond methodology would say to let the hive die if it is going to die. You don't want the genetics anyway. But that is implying that there is something wrong with it's genetics, and that it's genetics has nothing viable to pass on to the next generation. That's a big assumption.

If that queen came from TF background, it is carrying some TF genetics. Arguably, not enough (as it is losing the battle with mites). But does that mean that it is incapable of passing on good genetics? Actually the opposite. If the queen came from TF background, she carries TF genetics. She may have mated with a drone (or drones) that don't carry TF genetics, so the workers in the colony might not express TF characteristics (if the non-TF drone genetics overpowered her genetics). But her drones would, as they are genetic clones of her.

If you allowed her to continue to generate drones, the next line of queens that mate with them may be able to have TF characteristics that exceeded her predecessors. Eliminating the hive via the Hard Bond method would not.

So, in that situation, treating may improve your chances of attaining treatment free faster than would not treating. Assuming that treatments have no effect on the genetics of the current hive.

*I've used TF as a short hand, and means more than just "Treatment Free" but mite resistant characteristics*

Same thing? Really? Does everyone in your home die if your lice get out of hand?

Come on Solomon. What is changed genetically in the queen when varroa mite treatment is used? If someone is selling queens and saying that their genetics makes them immune or resistant to varroa do they include some sort of money back garuntee?

I think you are looking at this as tryign to get bits and piecs of good in and then keep them. Getting the good is really not the problem. it is getting the bad out. By saving those queens that are loosing the battle you are saving the very traits that do not allow them to survive. Breeding is more abotu selecting agains rather than selecting for. In other words rather than selecting for some degree of resistance you select agains the tendency to fail.

Think of a glass of pure water. Then water is added that is muddy. Just a little but you can still see the color of the water has been tenged. would you want to drink it? How much clean water would have to be added to make it clean enough to make it pure again? What if every bit of water you added had just a tiny bit of mud? It must be pure water you pour back in and you will have to pour it in for some period of time. You must take much care to not let any more contaminants get by. And breeding is actually like that . far more about recognizing and prohiitiing the contaminants than fostering along the desirable traits. the desirable seems to almost come to the forefront due to lack of any other interfering traits to prevent them from doing so.

If you get that idea you will begn to see how a queen with even a small amount of tendency to fail must be removed. she only adds a tiny bit of mud to the water but that is to much.

It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp.

A citation for that exists?

Originally Posted by Solomon Parker

For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.

Heard that old chestnut a few times. A citation for it exists?

What you are confused with is a hive treated for AFB with antibiotics, runs the risk of getting it again after treatment, because the antibiotics don't kill the spores. This has nothing to do with the thread topic, can a chemical treatment alter genetics. Straw man argument.

I'd be willing to bet that you can't quote anyone remotely credible who has made such a claim.

deknow

He wrote that two people he knows both said it. Which is why he asked if it could be true. Whether it is ture or not is the question, not whether anyone credible said it. Credibility has nothing to do with his querie.

Ha Deknow, I did know that, and believed that you would be the man with the reference.

But note I was specifically asking for a reference in regards to AFB as per Solomons claim. Not chalk brood. I am aware of the affect of micro flora on chalkbrood, AFB, not so much.

Point being, your reference has to do with the effects of fungicides on microflora. The thread topic is the effects of treatments on genetics, and the AFB argument as presented by Solomon, is 1. unsubstantiated, 2. a straw man argument, and 3. off topic and misleading.

Just as an interesting aside, chalkbrood is virtually unknown here, and we don't feed our bees antibiotics. Don't think I've seen chalkbrood in 20 years, and not more than a few isolated incidents my entire life.

So that, in a practicle setting, would be consistent with your claims Deknow, happy to believe you on that. Maybe even chalkbrood is a symptom of micoflora imbalance brought about as a direct result of antibiotic use. I'll bet even in the US, it is rare among long term treatment free folks.

> It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp.

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

A citation for that exists?

Oldtimer, I belive that you may have missed David LaFerney's sarcasm. Here's the original paragraph:

Originally Posted by David LaFerney

It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp. Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley?